***UPDATE - YAHOO MISLEADS WITH KATRINA HEADLINE, LINKING TO OLD STORY TO PUSH GLOBAL WARMING AGENDA. SCROLL FOR DETAILS***

I never tire of mocking the global warmists. This time scientists discover evidence of catastrophic "global warming" 12 to 14 million years ago, yet somehow don't find the time to ask "wait, then why are we blaming today's warming on humans?" Idiots.

SYRACUSE, N.Y. - A 30-mile maze canyons in Antarctica was carved out of bedrock by the catastrophic draining of subglacial lakes during global warming between 12 million and 14 million years ago, according to university researchers who warn a similar event today could have serious environmental consequences.

Although scientists have previously theorized that the Labyrinth region in southern Victoria Land was created by water released from lakes that had formed under glaciers, researchers at Syracuse University and Boston University say they found geological evidence to bracket the timing of the last major flooding and link it to a global warming trend at the time.

Read the rest...

This comes on the heels of a days old story about "global warming" actually causing some glaciers to grow! As I said in that previous post:

As if the discoveries that plants are a cause of "global warming", that the dino era Atlantic Ocean was a hot tub, and that Greenland's glaciers have naturally been melting for over 100 years weren't embarassing enough for global warmists, they've had to deal with a below average hurricane season after everyone predicted a busy storm year, which the global warmists prematurely blamed on warmer waters caused by "global warming". Now, in addition to the countless studies of other growing glacier scientists have been studying growing glaciers in Asia. Of course the religion of "global warming" prevents any "scientist" from questioning the whole theory, but it's always interesting to see reporting on growing glaciers, when all we ever hear is that they're all shrinking, and it's your fault if you drive an SUV.

Seriously though, we need to send some environmentalists back in time to talk to the dinosaurs about all those greenhouse gas emissions. We need some oversight over t-rex pollution credits and convince those little bastard velociraptors to stop driving the big suvs and drive a hip new Toyota Prehistoricus.

Anyway, while I don't buy the "millions of years" crap, I just enjoy stories that make global warmists look like fools. Contradictory evidence, always completely ignored. What I don't enjoy is the lack of publicity these stories get. It seems like the warming community is dealt embarassing blows almost daily lately, yet hardly anyone no one knows it.

***UPDATE***
I actually meant to screen cap this earlier when it was the larger featured item on the Yahoo! home page, but I still got it while it's up there as a smaller featured item:

At first I was excited, thinking finally someone is pointing out that it was a very weak storm that hit New Orleans, and the damage wasn't the result of "Katrina ravaging" anything. Sadly I was simply taken to the "Full Coverage: Climate Change" page at Yahoo! featuring a giant headline, "Global warming affects hurricane intensity: study". I think to call the headline on the home page misleading is an understatement. What does this general page have to do with Katrina?

Well, I figured I'd click that top headline, the one in large font at the top of the page and see if maybe the Katrina debate would be mentioned, even though the "global warming" headline has nothing to do with "Katrina's intensity sparks heated debate" which was what I clicked through on the home page, and intended to read about. I was hoping that the debate I was promised might be burried in yet another global warming propaganda article. I was let down when I found that the only mention of Katrina was YET ANOTHER example of misleading:

Four of the hurricanes were Category 5, the strongest on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale. One of those, Wilma, was the most intense Atlantic hurricane ever recorded.

The season also produced Katrina, which killed more than 1,300 people and caused about $80 billion in damage when it swamped New Orleans and other parts of the U.S. Gulf coast.

Again, pushing the myth that Katrina was a category 5, which as I've repeatedly stated is bogus. It was a category 3 and New Orleans only experienced category 1 to 2 conditions. End. Of. Story. Well, not end of story if you're a consumer of MSM news, but if you live in the real world that case has long sense been closed.

Worse than the obnoxious misleading, I realized that this article seemed very familiar to me, like I had read it recently and laughed at it's "global warming is bringing mad hurricanes yo" premise. Then I realized I had.. On August 15 when it was written! Why are they rerunning 2 week old articles global warming propaganda as top stories? Oh yeah, because they're hoping their lies will catch on even though they've been disappointed so far this season. They know the hurricane season is a long one and they can keep marching this stuff out and hopefully it hits at the right time. But couldn't they at least change the words around a bit and change the date to try to fool us? Come on, you guys aren't even trying anymore.

 

***UPDATE - A couple hours after posting this I dipped over to Drudge and found a link to a UPI story, reporting that Russian scientists are predicting "global cooling" to start within a few years, plunging us in to a second "mini-ice age" for about five decades. SCROLL FOR DETAILS.***

As if the discoveries that plants are a cause of "global warming", that the dino era Atlantic Ocean was a hot tub, and that Greenland's glaciers have naturally been melting for over 100 years weren't embarassing enough for global warmists, they've had to deal with a below average hurricane season after everyone predicted a busy storm year, which the global warmists prematurely blamed on warmer waters caused by "global warming". Now, in addition to the countless studies of other growing glacier scientists have been studying growing glaciers in Asia. Of course the religion of "global warming" prevents any "scientist" from questioning the whole theory, but it's always interesting to see reporting on growing glaciers, when all we ever hear is that they're all shrinking, and it's your fault if you drive an SUV.

The dogmatism of the belief is revealed in the first two paragraphs:

New research published today into climate change in Asia could explain why many glaciers there are growing and not melting.

The investigation into the western Himalaya and the surrounding Karakoram and Hindu Kush mountains shows that this area could be reacting differently to global warming, the phenomenon blamed for causing glaciers to melt and shrink.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. These members of the church of warming are so blind to the obvious, they just can't look objectively at the evidence. It's just like the Darwinists... whenever they see evidence that indicates a much younger univers, or viable soft tissue in bones of supposedly 70 million year old dinosaurs, they don't question their religion, they make adjustments to make contradictory evidence fit. Lately it's become pretty much a daily task for these "science" communities.

Global Warming in action:

They found that a recent rise in winter temperatures and a cooling of summer temperatures, combined with an increase in snow and rainfall, could be causing glaciers to grow, at least in the higher mountain regions.

Scientist translation: See, global warming causes temperatures to increase. But global warming also causes temperatures to decrease. You may just call it the "weather" or natural climate change, but I assure you, it's not. What's that? How do I know? Uh... uh... No further questions.

These findings are particularly significant because temperature and rain and snow trends in the Upper Indus Basin also impact on the water availability for more than 50 million Pakistanis.

Melt water from glaciers and the previous winter's snow supplies water for the summer run-off which feeds irrigation both in the mountains and in the plains of the lower Indus.

So what you're saying is that this global warming is necessary to keep thirsty Pakistanis alive? Well then I suggest we all test drive Hummers tomorrow to do our part. Seems more productive than dumping millions of dollars there through the UN doesn't it?

The Guardian article goes on to talk about using the new findings to help manage Pakistani water systems. What it doesn't do is explain how this is evidence for global warming, or how these growing glaciers fit in with the alarmism over other shrinking glaciers. Are we about to go back to the 70s and have everyone shouting "global cooling" again?

More of the same at the Beeb.

Hurricane Season Disclaimer: My earlier comments on hurricanes weren't meant to say we won't get some nasty storms, there's one brewing now, but everyone had to downgrade their predictions and the facts are the facts, it's been a below average season. Even if it had been the worst yet, it still doesn't make a case for global warming. Also, keep in mind that the destruction of New Orleans wasn't a result of a huge hurricane, it was the result of design and construction flaws in levees that the Army Corps of Engineers said should hold, especially with the minor category 1 to 2 conditions that hit the city, and never warned of a break.

Others:
Flashpoint, Southern Appeal, Slapstick Politics, Deep Keel, Don Surber, Point Five, Mickey's Electrified Blogging Machine, Never Yet Melted, Blogofascists, Environmental Legal Blogs

***UPDATE - GLOBAL COOLING ON THE WAY...AGAIN***
Let me start by saying that I don't know if I believe this because all the alarmists shouted this in the 70s. But now they shout global warming, so it's great to see scientists totally flip it on them and predict another mini-ice age. Anything that mocks the preposterous "global warming" theory is fine in my book, and this prediction, coupled with all the actual evidence (not the cherry picked and spun crap the media feeds us) is yet another reason to unbelieve this crap.

I know a lot of you will have trouble looking at the piles of actual evidence, because we've been brainwashed to believe this stuff, but it's time you opened your eyes. Don't expect the "science community" to join you, because at this point they need to keep the faith or lose the funding. If this cooling pans out, the pendulum will swing without any acknowledgement of the deliberate lying and misleading, and suddenly the alarmism will be over global cooling. The UN will still promise to be our savior, but hopefully enough Americans will have started to see through their agenda by then.

On with the UPI story

MOSCOW, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.

The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.

Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.

"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said. "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol."

Don't be surprised, if/when cooling takes place, the "science community" tries to say that this is a result of "global warming". No matter what happens in the weather/climate they always come up with some way to say "global warming caused this", and that will be no different with global cooling. Remember that I said this, because if/when global cooling takes place you will undoubtedly see all the warming alarmists maintain that they knew this all along and it's still all our fault, fossil fuels, greenhouse gases, etc. etc. Count on it. In fact you can get the feeling just from this MosNews article about this same prediction.

 

If you haven't done so already, read my recent post on this year's hurricane season helping to expose "global warming" myths. Proceed with this post when you're done, as it just piles on with an unrelated story that points toward the same conclusion.

A study of Greenland's glaciers, thought to be the most comprehensive, shows that they have been shrinking for over 100 years, leading to the obvious conclusion once again that global warming is crap:

Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.

"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, told AFP.

Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight meters per year," Yde said.

"We studied 95 percent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said.

The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985.

"A three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930, and the increase recorded since 1995 has sped up the ice melt," he said.

The effect of the rising temperatures in the 1920s and 1930s was "visible dozens of years later, and that of the 1990s will be (visible) in 10 or 20 years," Yde said, adding that he expected Greenland's glaciers to melt even faster in the future.

(sarcasm)Shocking!(/sarcasm). But don't forgot to try to spin it back a little...

The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is "the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further," he said.

Notice that no evidence is offered to support the "greenhouse gases, created by human activities..." part?

As I said in the hurricane season/"global warming" post:

Notice that 2005 was a record season, but the previous record was 72 years earlier, in 1933! Did global warming cause that record season that held all the way until last year? Think liberals, think! I'm so tired of you telling me it's the hottest it's been in X years, and having to ask you "why was it that hot X years ago? Who drove the hummer or burned stuff at a factory?"

To reiterate, don't tell me humans caused some climate change, when there is a historic record of the same climate in our recent and distant past. This shows up and down patterns, NOT human caused "global warming". You can't tell me "it hasn't been this hot since..." without explaining to me why it was that hot then, and why you so blindly believe that today it's caused by human activity.

I suppose our only hope is for Muhammad to come back with his winged horse, fly to the sun with a suicide bomb, and blow away a big chunk to save us from the irrepairable damage we've caused to the planet. And what better time? Tomorrow is August 22.

 

It's no secret that I think "global warming" is tremendous pile of crap and that I'm infuriated when I hear liberals blaming it for increased natural disasters, hurricanes in particular. It's annoying mainly because we can look at the historical record and see that these are natural cycles of upswings and downswings in hurricane activity that last sometimes a decade or two. Check out Accuweather.com's Joe Bastardi if you're out of the loop.

What's really interesting is that everyone, including the Accuweather folks, predicted an active season this year, but after a slow start have downgraded their "prediction" (which seems more like part observation when it's revised the way it was).

Downgraded:

Forecasters now expect 12 to 15 named storms including seven to nine hurricanes. Of those hurricanes, three to four could become intense storms of at least Category 3.

Original:

In May, federal forecasters said the 2006 north Atlantic hurricane season would be ''very active,'' with 13 to 16 named storms. Of those, eight to 10 were expected to blossom into hurricanes with four to six becoming intense hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher.

But wait! Aren't more hurricanes the result of global warming? And haven't we been bombarded with headlines all summer about all the record high temperatures in all states this summer? Haven't they been preparing the report that while 2005 was the old "hottest year on record" 2006 took the crown? They even got Pat Robertson (which isn't really that surprising because he's always looking for a reason to say something stupid).

So explain to me why this hurricane season has been downgraded? Need more than that? How about the fact that we're having a BELOW AVERAGE season.

Let me guess "scientists", you've got a way to spin that as "global warming" too, right? I'm sure somehow the warm water you talked about leading up to this season, actually reflected the sun better and kept the water below the surface cooler or something, right? Just like I'm sure global warming explains why snow fell for the first time in 25 years in Johannesburg a couple weeks ago and crazy rare snow has repeatedly pounded South Africa this month. Please liberals, I'm dying to hear your explanations on this.

One other quick point about that graphic. Notice that 2005 was a record season, but the previous record was 72 years earlier, in 1933! Did global warming cause that record season that held all the way until last year? Think liberals, think! I'm so tired of you telling me it's the hottest it's been in X years, and having to ask you "why was it that hot X years ago? Who drove the hummer or burned stuff at a factory?"

Have no fear though libs, if you were getting concerned that your global warming dogma might beging to fall on deaf ears, Reuters has your back. You never had to worry anyway, because most mainstream scientists fear opposing global warming because it virtually eliminates the posibility of gaining funding and has the potential to hurt them at work, but Reuters just wants you to know that they're there for you and Yahoo! helped by blasting the headline across their home page:

Atlantic hurricanes could rev up any time

The article opens with this gem:

MIAMI (Reuters) - There has been little action in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season so far, but that may be about to change.

... and ends with this...

So far this year, only three tropical storms have formed -- Alberto, Beryl and Chris. Strong wind shear -- the difference in wind speed and direction at different levels of the atmosphere -- has disrupted some of the tropical weather systems that eventually become cyclones.

Mayfield expressed puzzlement as to why the season hasn't been a little more active.

"We're actually not sure why some of these are not developing," he said.

Mayfield obviously doesn't understand how this evil global warming works. Apparently neither does anyone else.

 

Like Kieth Olberman and Al Franken's obsession with Bill O'Reilly, Al Gore can't get enough of President George W. Bush (you like the sound of that don't you Al? "PRESIDENT George W. Not Gore Bush"!).

First, concerning the Iraq war Gore said of the President, "He betrayed this country!", then more recently he claimed that the after 9/11, under President Bush, Arabs were "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions , (of course he was in Saudi Arabia and offered no evidence). You should all remember that this wasn't long after Bill Clinton went to Dubay to proclaim that the Iraq war was a mistake. Why is it these shameful pukes had to go to Arab countries to say this stuff, and won't say it here?

Anyway, Gore has let loose once again...

Via the New York Daily News (article excerpts)

But that hasn't stopped him from writing a gasket-blowing polemic arguing that by refusing to face up to the threat of global warming, Bush is just like the disgraced British prime minister who appeased the Nazis before World War II.

(see previous post for more on "global warming", or is it "global cooling".... maybe it's just the weather!?)

Bush "was warned on Aug. 6, 2001, of an attack by Al Qaeda. 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,' said the intelligence community in a message so important that it was the headline of the President's daily briefing that day, five weeks before the attacks," Gore seethes.

"Didn't he see that clear warning?" asks Gore. "Why were no questions asked, meetings called, evidence marshaled, clarifications sought?"

First of all, these type of warnings were not uncommon and there was no actionable intelligence. It's not like the President got some warning that said "they are going to fly planes in to building on 9/11 and we can stop it Mr. President if you just give us the word". And does Gore really want to get started on which administration ignored terrorism? Do we really want to talk about all the unanswered terrorist attacks on American targets during the Clinton administration? Or how about Able Danger? Or about passing on Bin Laden numerous times?

You didn't win and you'll never be President so give it up dude. On second thought, keep it up Al, you're only hurting your own party by running around the world crying like a baby. Well, not so much running around as flying to make your alarmist speeches and burning 439,500 pounds of fuel at a cost of $131,000 in one trip, when you could have used your invention, the Internet, to video conference in your speech. Don't hang around for questions though, just hit the road in that Cadillac Escalade.

 

Anyone under the age of 25 has had the "global warming" myth drilled in to their heads for as long as they can remember. It has always been cleverly lumped in with pollution and keeping the planet clean and other related noble causes. But once on my own I gave it a little thought one time and realized: "Wait a minute, if we're expected to believe in all these ice ages coming and ending, what caused that?"

Seriously, if we're to be so concerned about this "drastic" climate change that everyone wants to blame on humans, who is to blame for bringing on and ending ice ages? Not that I believe in millions/billions of years, but were the dinosaurs of millions of years ago driving around hummers? Actually that reminds me of a post (and quick photoshop) I wrote a while back when the LiveScience headline was "Ocean Was a Hot Tub in Dino Era". Read the post (and interesting story) here, see PS below.

While we're on the topic of older RightWinged.com "Global Warming" posts, I just remembered the one about the finding that plants are actually actually a cause of (perceived) global warming, producing as much as 30% of the Earth's methane every year. This left a lof of scientists scratching their heads, since plants were supposed to be the one thing fighting the evils us humans are unleashing on the planet. Obviously this scientific finding didn't get the play that the recent Time Magazine cover got, with it's bold cover story: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried", because it throws a tremendous wrench in the Global Warmists' agenda, which has the backing of the NWO... I mean the UN (typo I swear).

Back to the common sense thing for a minute. It would take extremely drastic climate changes to start and end ice ages, so who caused that? Even if Global Warming were real, there isn't any proof that it's human caused... But boy would some scientists lose a lot of funding if they were to announce that, huh?

Another common sense thing I always like to toss in there for the uninformed. Yes, ice coming off of Antarctica, in to the ocean can (eventually) raise the sea levels, but ice melting in the arctic cannot. Know why? The arctic is ice, not ice on land like Antarctica (that's the south pole by the way). But they're always trying to scare us about glaciers melting in the Arctic. Ready to do an expiriment? All you need is a glass from your kitchen, an ice cube or two and some water. Put the ice cube(s) in to the glass and fill the glass up with water until it's so full it's on the verge of spilling. Now let it sit, and let the ice melt. You'll notice the water level won't change.

Enter George Will with today's dose of common sense. He has a lot of questions about the media's coverage of "global warming" (yes I always put that in quotes just to irritate the believers). In addition, Will did some digging and found that not only was Newsweek alarming us in the 70s that Global Cooling was our biggest fear, but much of the rest of the media was in on it as well.

Via Jewish World Review
(excerpt below, read entire piece here)

While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

read more...

 

Ah, yet another story to rub in the face of the global warming alarmists. If you hadn't already heard, global warming is the ridiculous myth that we're all brainwashed with in school, newspapers, television... anywhere you look. They have really managed get people to buy in to the bogus theory that us evil humans, through driving all these SUVs and recklessly cutting down trees, are destroying the planet. They say that the greenhouse gases that we cause, are trapping heat in the atmosphere causing the planet to heat up, thus the term "global warming". I've got to ask though, what caused this (via LiveScience):

Hot tub sales would have been dismal back in the dinosaur era, when the steaming ocean provided a free alternative.

In fact, in some places it was too hot to dip a toe.

A new study of ancient sediments and fossils indicates tropical Atlantic water ranged from 91 to 107 degrees Fahrenheit between 100 million and 84 million years ago. The same region today is typically 75 to 82 degrees.

Hot tubs get very uncomfortable for most people above about 104 degrees.

"These temperatures are off the charts from what we've seen before," said Karen Bice, a paleoclimatologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

The atmosphere had more heat-trapping carbon dioxide back then.

Bice reported the findings today at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in St. Louis. The work will be detailed in the journal Paleoceanography.

Scientists don't know what might have caused ocean temperatures to get so high. Climate models that consider increases in carbon dioxide can't account for it, Bice said.

Jumping back for a minute, let's get one recent story out there incase you hadn't heard. Plants are a huge cause of the effects that global warmists are blaming on people!!! This is a total 180 on what we've been told. Don't expect that to be too highly publicized because that makes a lot of governments, groups, the UN, etc. question the billions of dollars they spend lining the pockets of the groups and politicians who push this crap.

Sadly virtually all politicians are almost forced to accept "global warming" on some level, because so many of the voters have been brainwashed in to believing in it, despite the lack of evidence. That's why they start out in elementary school, because those kids don't have any questions or even the ability to recognize the holes in the stupid theory.

But setting aside that our green friends are contributing to the supposed "global warming", consider one other thing - the fear in the 1970s (before I was born) was that we would fall victim to the hands of "Global Cooling", and this was even the subject of the cover story of Newsweek's April 1975 issue. Global Cooling!!! Run for your lives!!! Forget about all that and ask the more important huge questions these people don't like you to ask:

(my words) Hello "scientist", I was curious: what caused the supposed ice ages? Assuming they were real and the way you describe them (a big assumption), what caused the extreme climate changes necessary to bring on and end ice ages? I mean, you can whine about these little slight temperature changes over 100 years, but that's not the same as what would have been necessary to cause sheets of ice, many miles thick to come down over land that is now comfortably inhabited by humans.

Even if that extreme cold and the ice ages did occur, how did you get the ridiculously rapid and drastic heating up that caused these miles thick ice sheets to melt? Did the Tyrannosaurus Rex drive a Hummer? Did the Brontosaurus run a factory with big smokestacks? I mean, if we're the evil cause of this "global warming", then what caused global warming/cooling in the "ancient" time you place your own ridiculous dates on, when we supposedly didn't exist?

Hmm... Anyway, look quickly at the Arctic. You know, that ice on top of the globe? Do you worry about that raising sea levels and causing floods, etc.? Then I've got a little project for you - Take an empty glass, put in 2 or 3 ice cubes, and fill with water to the very top. Fill it up as high as you can possibly go without it overflowing. Set it on your counter and let the ice melt. What!?!?!? It didn't change the water level!?!?!? It didn't overflow!?!?!? We can argue about Greenland and Antarctica another time, but the fact is you ask the average person and they've forgotten that junior high school science, and they believe that the Arctic melting will raise water levels, because that is the agenda you push on them

So back to today's development. The Atlantic was like a hot tub! How's that for global warming?! Not that your "millions of years" are accurate, but if this Atlantic hot tub idea is true then it deals a huge blow to your human caused "global warming" bs.

In closing I'd like to mention how annoying I find it that these people have now managed to get the public to believe that extreme cold and warmth are a result of this "global warming." When it's an extremely hot week in the summer "global warming" they scream! When there's an extreme cold week "effects of global warming" they scream. Wow, where I come from (Earth) we call it THE WEATHER!!!

 

Michelle Malkin has the full story on Al Gore's latest "global warming" alarmist festival. I don't have the energy to rant about the BS that is global warming right now... But I would like to, as always, ask all global warmists to explain something:

What caused the (supposed) ice ages, and then caused them to melt? It wasn't any slight temperature changes melting ice sheets that are miles thick. It would have to be extreme climate changes that would bring on and end (supposed) ice ages. So tell me, who was driving around the hummers all those (chuckle) millions of years ago? What ancestors of the evil Bush/Saudi alliance were lining their pockets with oil money while someone drove around prehistoric SUVs?

By the way, death to plants.

 

SCROLL FOR UPDATES

Alright, I'm not big on the conspiracy theories, but I am of the group that believes that the United Nations' ultimate goal is to create a New World Order, one world government. I also subsribe to the belief that the "global warming" myth is part of their means to that end. Setting aside the global warming aspect, it's really no secret that the United Nations wants to create a New World Order. There have been plenty of reports and public statements to this effect, and even if you've missed all of them, you couldn't have possibly missed the constant butting of heads with the United States, because they need us more than we need them, and they can't stand it. Like Democrats they would like everyone to believe "we need" them, and then they gain control over everything we do, in one way or another.

Enter this story from World Net Daily, that I don't expect we'll hear anywhere else, about a draft proposal by the UN Development Program that seems pretty unambiguous about it's goals. Follow that last link and notice all those nice articles about the $100 computers, but other than WND, nothing on this. In Google, however, I was able to find a great column on this at the Christian site Crosswalk, which ties a lot of this in with Biblical prophecy.

Below is the entire WND Article READ IT. If this sort of thing interests you, I suggest you do a little research to catch up on the issue, and I'll let you all make up your own minds and not push anymore tin-foil hatage on you.

The U.N. has a plan to make every Miss America Pageant contestant happy by bringing about "world peace."

All it will take, says the draft of a visionary proposal by the U.N. Development Program, is to getting rid of all the pesky nations of the world.

In fact, the plan endorsed by prominent world figures including Nobel laureates, bankers, politicians and economists to end nation-states as we know them is also designed to end health pandemics, poverty and "global warming." So far, the U.N. hasn't mentioned whether the proposal will do anything for obesity.

The U.N. says an unprecedented outbreak of co-operation between countries, applied through six specific financial tools, would serve as pretty much a cure-all for the world's ills and generate an extra $7 trillion in economic growth.

The authors of the ambitious report don't expect nations to fold up and take the hint any time soon. But the idea is to start the ball rolling – and maybe years or decades from now the world will actually be ready to listen.

Most of the focus of the U.N. plan is on global warming – a climate change phenomenon some consider to be more theory than reality. But it seems to be the central component in the U.N.'s globalization scheme for the future – the very organizing principal behind the push to eliminate borders, sovereign governments and autonomous nation-states.

If the scheme seems far-fetched, consider that it already has the backing of the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, according to the London Independent.

The U.N. plan includes six immediate action steps:

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through pollution permit trading;

Cut poor countries' borrowing costs by securing the debts against the income from stable parts of their economies;

Reduce government debt costs by linking payments to the country's economic output;

An aggressive campaign of worldwide vaccinations;

Tapping into the vast flow of money from migrants back to their home country;

Aid agencies underwriting loans to market investors to lower interest rates.
It's not the first time the U.N. has come out openly to suggest global government is the only solution to the world's problems. "Our Global Neighborhood" was a 410-page final report of the Commission on Global Governance, and was first published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. That 28-member "independent commission," created by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt, developed the following strategy, as reported in the EcoSocialist Review: "To represent a shot-across-the-bow of George Bush's New World Order, and make clear that now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty to democratic transnationalism."

Then-U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali endorsed the commission, and the U.N. provided significant funding. The plan calls for dramatically strengthening the United Nations, by implementing a laundry list of recommendations, including these:

Eliminating the veto and permanent member status in the Security Council;

Authorizing global taxation on currency exchange and use of the "global commons;"

Creating an International Criminal Court;

Creating a standing army under the command of the secretary-general;

Creating a new Economic Security Council;

Creating a new People's Assembly;

Regulating multinational corporations;

Regulating the global commons;

Controlling the manufacture, sale and distribution of all firearms.
And none of those recommendations were new. All had been proposed in a variety of documents for decades by various groups and individuals. However, this did mark the first time the comprehensive plan for global governance was published with the approval and funding support of the United Nations.

To justify the sweeping changes proposed by the commission, a new concept of "security" was offered. The U.N.'s mission under its present charter is to provide "security" to its member nations through "collective" action. The new concept expands the mission of the U.N. to be the security of the people – and the security of the planet.

Thus, in their speeches to the U.N.'s Millennium Assembly in 2000, both Secretary General Kofi Annan and President Bill Clinton made reference to this new concept, saying national sovereignty could no longer be used as an excuse to prevent the intervention by the U.N. to provide "security" for people inside national boundaries.

To provide security for the planet, the plan called for authorizing the U.N. Trusteeship Council to have "trusteeship" over the "global commons," which the plan defines to be: " ... the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life."

Someone else taking note?
Mr. Minority

***UPDATE***
Tom at Bizzyblog just left a comment about Rush mentioning this, as well as The Independent. He was a bit bummed that the article was now behind the subscription firewall... but have no fear, I did a quick search and located the text of the article. (even though this Free Republic article attributes it to Drudge, it's really actually the Independent article.)

The most potent threats to life on earth - global warming, health pandemics, poverty and armed conflict - could be ended by moves that would unlock $7 trillion - $7,000,000,000,000 (£3.9trn) - of previously untapped wealth, the United Nations claims today.

The price? An admission that the nation-state is an old-fashioned concept that has no role to play in a modern globalised world where financial markets have to be harnessed rather than simply condemned.

In a groundbreaking move, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) has drawn up a visionary proposal that has been endorsed by a range of figures including Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Laureate.

It says an unprecedented outbreak of co-operation between countries, applied through six specific financial tools, would slice through the Gordian knot of problems that have bedevilled the world for most of the last century.

If its recommendations are accepted - and the authors acknowledge this could take years or even decades - it could finally force countries to face up to the fact that their public finance and growth figures conceal the vast damage their economies do to the environment.

At the heart of the proposal, unveiled at a gathering of world business leaders at the Swiss ski resort of Davos, is a push to get countries to account for the cost of failed policies, and use the money saved "up front" to avert crises before they hit. Top of the list is a challenge to the United States to join an international pollution permit trading system which, the UN claims, could deliver $3.64trn of global wealth.

Inge Kaul, a special adviser at the UNDP, said: "The way we run our economies today is vastly expensive and inefficient because we don't manage risk well and we don't prevent crises." She downplayed concerns over up-front costs and interest payments for the new-fangled financial devices. "The gains in terms of development would outweigh those costs. Money is wasted because we dribble aid, and the costs of not solving the problems are much, much higher than what we would have to pay for getting the financial markets to lend the money."

The UNDP is determined to ensure globalisation, which has generated vast wealth for multinational companies, benefits the poorest in society.

It urges politicians to embrace some groundbreaking schemes put in place in the past 12 months to tackle global warning, poverty and disease, based on working with the global markets to share out the risk.

These include a pilot international finance facility (IFF) to "front load" $4bn of cash for vaccines by borrowing money against pledges of future government aid.

The scheme, which is backed by the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was born out of a proposal by Gordon Brown for a larger scheme to double the total aid budget to $100bn a year.

In an endorsement of the report, Mr Brown said: "This shows how we can equip people and countries for a new global economy that combined greater prosperity and fairness both within and across nations."

The UNDP says rich countries should build on this and go further. It proposes six schemes to harness the power of the markets:

* Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through pollution permit trading; net gain $3.64trn.

* Cutting poor countries' borrowing costs by securing the debts against the income from stable parts of their economies; net gain $2.90trn.

* Reducing government debt costs by linking payments to the country's economic output; net gain $600bn.

* An enlarged version of the vaccine scheme; net gain (including benefits of lower mortality) $47bn.

* Using the vast flow of money from migrants back to their home country to guarantee; net gain $31bn.

* Aid agencies underwriting loans to market investors to lower interest rates; net gain $22bn.

Professor Stiglitz, the former chief economist of the World Bank and a staunch critic of the way globalisation harms the poor, said: "Globalisation has meant the closer integration of countries, and that in turn has meant a greater need for collective action.

"One of the most important areas of failure is the environment. Without government intervention, firms and households have no incentive to limit their pollution." He said a global public finance system would force countries to acknowledge the external damage their policies had, "the most important being global climate change".

Solving the environmental crisis tops the UN's $7trn wish-list. It calls for an international market to trade pollution permits that would encourage rich countries to cut pollution and hit their targets under the Kyoto protocol.

But - and the UN admits it is a big "but" - the US would have to sign up to Kyoto and carbon trading to achieve the $3.64trn that it believes the system would deliver over time.

"We are dealing with a global problem as pollution can only be dealt with internationally," Ms Kaul said. Richard Sandor, the head of the Chicago Climate Exchange, added: "Many encouraging signs are emerging. When the business case is clear, private entrepreneurs step forward."

But, the proposal is unlikely to get support from some green groups who believe that action to curb consumption, rather than market incentives, are the way to reduce carbon emissions.

Andrew Simms, director of the New Economics Foundation, said it left unanswered questions over how these markets would be managed and how the benefits and costs would be distributed. "We have nothing against markets so it would be missing the point to get into a pro- or anti-market stance. The point is how you distribute the benefits."

 

Don't expect this to make to many headlines after the Global Warminist community has spent so many years indoctrinating us... but their buddies the plants are turning on them.

According to three articles published in Nature, scientists are all "shocked" and "baffled" to find "right under their noses" the fact that plants are contributing a huge amount of methane, which they believe is causing "global warming." I put that in quotes purposely because I'm not convinced "global warming" is real, but have always maintained that there isn't evidence to prove that it's human caused even if it does exist. These new findings support my beliefs, along with many others who've been annoyed with the dogmatic "global warming" movement.

Plants appear to be contributing as much as 30% of the methane in the atmosphere. This is leaving all these people scratching their heads, and I believe placing global warmists on the defensive. I've always been annoyed by one thing about the whole "global warming" movement. For starters, it was only a few decades ago that they were screaming "global cooling", but beyond that I would like to know:
What caused the ice ages they believe happened in the past? If we didn't have smokestacks and hummers all those years ago, what do they say caused the drastic climate change that brought the numerous ice ages they believe occured, and then what caused the drastic climate change that brought ends to those ice ages?

There are a number of write ups on this if you can google, but here's an excerpt from a Reuters article, via Yahoo!:

But the study also poses questions, such as how such a potentially large source of methane could have been overlooked and how plants produced it.

"There will be a lively scramble among researchers for the answers to these and other questions," Lowe added.

Yeah, how could it have been overlooked? Maybe because of the "create theory, blame humans, get paid" mentality from this global warming cabal (which may or may not be related to the UN/NWO conspiracy many believe exists... I'm on the fence still.)

Anyway, like I said, I'd like an answer to the ice age questions I posed above before I get concerned about stopping "global warming", which every day seems less likely to be caused by man if it even exists.

More:
Creation - Evolution News has some interest comments
The Black Kettle wants to raze the Amazon
Daily Musings seems to fear the attack of the plants
Hilariously, The WV Rebel realizes that this one really is the fault of "bush". (I should have thought of that)
Chip Mathis sees no hope
Mike's Noise says "Plant a tree today, destroy the planet tomorrow"
TigerHawk is also annoyed by the global warming community